Why did #1 shoot the intentional foul FT? Can you select that for unsporting foul in NCAAW?

bob jenkins

Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:38am

Other than the verbiage by the announcers (and, Jeff, your words at the intro to the play), I think they got these right.

Both are unsportsmanlike fouls ("unsporting" has a different meaning in NCAAW -- it's non-contact behaviour). Neither is a technical foul, but both count to the two unsportsmanlike fouls for disqualification.

Because one was live ball and one was dead ball they do not offset (if both had been live or both had been dead, they would offset). Enforce in the order they happened -- and give the ball at the division line to the team that was last offended.

bob jenkins

Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:39am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valley Man
(Post 1016373)

Why did #1 shoot the intentional foul FT? Can you select that for unsporting foul in NCAAW?

Yes -- just like for a T -- any player or eligible sub can shoot.

pizanno

Wed Feb 07, 2018 02:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
(Post 1016376)

Neither is a technical foul, but both count to the two unsportsmanlike fouls for disqualification.

Correction: Unsporting behavior IS a Technical Foul (dead-ball contact may be deemed incidental), and Technicals DO NOT count towards the two Unsportsmanlike Foul disqualification count. If White #15 received a subsequent Unsportsmanlike Foul, she would not have been DQ'd.

The crew could've deemed #15's reaction as an Unsportsmanlike Foul, but seemed to decide the behavior/reaction was more relevant than the disengaging "contact".

bob jenkins

Wed Feb 07, 2018 08:43am

Quote:

Originally Posted by pizanno
(Post 1016445)

Correction: Unsporting behavior IS a Technical Foul (dead-ball contact may be deemed incidental), and Technicals DO NOT count towards the two Unsportsmanlike Foul disqualification count. If White #15 received a subsequent Unsportsmanlike Foul, she would not have been DQ'd.

The crew could've deemed #15's reaction as an Unsportsmanlike Foul, but seemed to decide the behavior/reaction was more relevant than the disengaging "contact".

Yes, "unsporting behavior" is a T. But, what happened in these plays was Unsportsmanlike Personal Fouls (and, yes, in NCAAW, you can have this type of personal foul while the ball is dead).

And, in NCAAW, a player is DQ for either two Ts or for two Unsportsmanlike fouls (but not for one of each) (which I think is what you said).

Edit: I think you are saying that Red was called for an Unsportsmanlike Foul and White was called for a T. If so, the FTs would be the same, but then White should get the ball for a throw-in. Since the officials gave the ball to Red, they either (a) deemed White's foul to be Unsportsmanlike, or, (b) kicked the administration.

Edit 2: The box score shows both teams with an Unsportsmanlike Foul at 1:37 (the time is from memory) and no Technical fouls

HawkeyeCubP

Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:37am

Quote:

Originally Posted by pizanno
(Post 1016445)

Correction: Unsporting behavior IS a Technical Foul (dead-ball contact may be deemed incidental), and Technicals DO NOT count towards the two Unsportsmanlike Foul disqualification count. If White #15 received a subsequent Unsportsmanlike Foul, she would not have been DQ'd.

The crew could've deemed #15's reaction as an Unsportsmanlike Foul, but seemed to decide the behavior/reaction was more relevant than the disengaging "contact".

I may be confused on your wording, but like Bob said, they did assess both opponents an Unsportsmanlike Foul. One was live ball, one was dead, so they didn't "cancel," and that's why they shot both in order and administered the ball the way they did (correctly).

And if 15 had been assessed an UNSF later, she absolutely would've been ejected - not disqualified. I know most of us know this, but there's a big difference.

SC Official

Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP
(Post 1016485)

And if 15 had been assessed an UNSF later, she absolutely would've been ejected - not disqualified. I know most of us know this, but there's a big difference.

I believe NCAA-W might use different terminology (the old F2 in NCAA-W is now called a "disqualifying foul"). Regardless, she'd have to leave the visual confines.

HawkeyeCubP

Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC Official
(Post 1016492)

I believe NCAA-W might use different terminology (the old F2 in NCAA-W is now called a "disqualifying foul"). Regardless, she'd have to leave the visual confines.

You believe correctly. And yes, the terminology between the two fouls and what happens when someone is forced to leave the game for different reasons is currently conflated.
And "visual confines," at least in NCAA-W, only applies, in the technical sense, to when the officials' jurisdiction ends.
An ejected player in NCAA-W must " leave the playing court and floor area and report to her teamís locker room until the game is over."

pizanno

Thu Feb 08, 2018 01:39am

Stand corrected.

Bob nailed it. I did't watch video all the way through. And thank you also for clarifying the DQ/ejection distinction. Important when it occurs.